By - Sorin61
I don't really understand why so many environmentalists are against gene editing. It's not fundamentally different than the horticulture we've been doing from the dawn of agriculture, just a more advanced form. It allows us to create crops with greater yields, feeding more people for less cost, land use, and other resources (such as nitrogen-based fertilizer). Now, *pesticides* that are the reason for *some* gene edits are a huge problem, but the genetics themselves are great for the environment and humanity both.
People are against it because it’s a tool that *could* be dangerous. Take certain companies in America that sell copyrighted GMO seeds to farmers so they can liberally spray carcinogenic herbicide across the entire field (the herbicide being sold by the same company). Because cereals are wind pollinated, the company can the go to the farmer next door and sue them for stealing their genes when their crop gets pollinated by the GMO crop.
Just to clarify - I am totally pro GE and GMO, I just think we need careful regulation surrounding who can use it to do what.
My favourite analogy is likening it to knives - you can’t ban them, everyone needs them for all sorts of safe legal activities, but it’s probably not wise to allow kids to carry them to school.
Well, yeah. But the problem there is capitalism, not GMOs. That's nothing new. Regulation is important, just as it was when they were modified in a field instead of a lab. I'd much rather know what pesticides and herbicides are in it than if it's GMO. The whole GMO thing is a distraction from the actual problem.
Heck, you can even do some degree of modification to make them need those pesticides and herbicides less. They just don't because seed manufacturers often manufacture seeds specifically in order to sell more of their poisons. Once again, the problem is capitalism creating perverse incentives.
So tl;dr I agree, we need regulations that target the actual problem instead of fearmongering about GMOs.
There are gmo plants which are deadly to insects, and cause a buildup of deadly toxins in their livers which kill them. (Pesticides in the genome)
Gmos could possibly be good, but they're not. Plenty of farmers would prefer to use heirloom seeds, but are instead forced by the government (which have essentially made them renters of their land, due to high prop taxes) to pick crops with higher yeilds, which might be less healthy.
Gmos are also being used to create dependence on these gmo companies.. They are taking away the ability of farmers to take seed from their harvest and use it next growing season.
Capitalism isn't the problem, unless you mean using capital to control and increase taxes, and force farmers into positions they otherwise wouldn't choose..
How science is likely to be used is absolutely something people should consider and be aware of. If most GMO science is used by uncaring capitalistic industry in a harmful way then that's what's happened. It is regrettable that every public awareness campiagn seems to eventually get reduced to simplistic talking points.
Yeah the tech I am ok with, application not so much. Also think that consumers should be informed.
There's also the inclusion of pesticide in the genomes and claiming its entirely safe for human consumption.
Calling others anti-science cave men, and worse (not you... someone else up the thread) is the mark of a non-specialist in the field defending every single product as fine because it's 'scientific'. Edit: obvious troll got butthurt and blocked me 😂.
Agent orange and 'American cheese' were also products of science, and the former was touted to be harmful at the time of use and the later many still believe to be healthy.
Absolutes when it comes to GMO prodcts should be avoided like the plague. One GMO can be drastically different from another. This is why each alteration really needs to be studied thoroughly on it's own merits and possible detriments.
Absolutes should pretty much always be avoided, that’s kinda the whole point of my post. I’m a horticulturist and I work with lots of scientists studding GM crops. Governments and companies are spending huge amounts of money researching a missive variety of techniques, crops and uses. As I said in my previous post, it absolutely should be regulated because the technology is advancing rapidly and anything could be possible... but I’m not worried about including ‘pesticide in the genome’ or anything like that. Pesticides are anything that can destroy or harm pests, which usually means horrible chemicals that kill everything they touch, but loads or plants have evolved their own pesticides and ways of being resistant to pests and diseases, and we’ve used selective breeding and hybridisation to change crops throughout history. The regulations should be strong, and the people who pay millions to design and test this stuff should be forced to pay millions to test it for environmental safety risks, but banning it makes no sense in a world where we have to feed 8 billion people in a changing climate with depleted soil using tonnes of artificial fertiliser made from ‘natural’ gas.
Overpopulation, climate change, depleted soils, industrial agriculture. Those are the issues to be worked on. GMOs just keep us longer on the path of destruction until nothing grows except GMOs and superweeds.
I wouldn't mind some super weed..
Blah blah blah, Stupid people don't deserve my kindness. If you want someone to hold your hand and be nice to you, I suggest going back to Kindergarten. The rest of us don't have time to pretend that your ignorance is somehow on an even playing field with reality.
So yeah. You can keep being a knuckle-dragging neanderthal all you want, but the rest of the world is NOT going to slow down all because you've got cold feet about a thing you clearly know nothing about.
If you're stupid, then good for you. But if you've got Malt-o-Meal for brains and want to try to force the rest of the world to abide by your cave-logic? Your ass is grass.
I see you didn't address any of the relevant examples i provided. You seem more intent on claiming to wield a bigger stick, yet refusing to prove you actually have a stick at all.
Unless you actually discuss the science, you are proving only to be a caveman throwing shit around to distract everyone from the fact that you are stickless. 🙃😂
What a sad, weak little boy you are. It's cute how you think that people on the internet are beholden to you, and that your backwards thinking deserves an equal place at the debate table.
No, people like you don't deserve equivalent responses. People like you are Court Jesters. You get dragged into the room solely to be mocked for your simpleminded and feeble attempts at thought. You're like monkeys in a zoo, you're only there for the people to Ooh and Aah over, and to laugh at when you start flinging your feces around.
>Blah blah blah
you want someone to hold your hand
back to Kindergarten
you've got Malt-o-Meal for brains
Your ass is grass
check out his post history =:-(
> the company can the go to the farmer next door and sue them for stealing their genes when their crop gets pollinated by the GMO crop
While this sounds scary, in actuality it has never happen. It's a common myth propagated by anti-GMO folks.
Cross pollination most certainly does happen. Along with your plants being sprayed with pesticides and herbicides which kill other farmers fields..
Farmers will literally burn down your plants if they are grown in a field next to them, and rightfully so.
If you want to grow gmo, grow it indoors, no one wants it.
I think the biggest concerns float around the ideea of having a few companies controlling all these modified seeds, basically controlling the food supply. They can control the price and if something goes terribly wrong there's no way back and not much consequence for them.
There are a LOT of companies making and selling gene-edited plants, and it's been the same since before direct gene editing was a part of that process.
What, you thought the various varieties of crops like Supersweet corn, or the Cavendish banana, or ANY of those other cultivars were all in the public domain?
No. Someone owns each and every cultivar you probably eat every single day. That's been that way since before even the IDEA of direct gene editing in foods was a thing.
But often capitalism, lobbying/corruption leads to monopoly,that s why in places like USA you have something that should be cheap and affordable like insulin cost shit ton of money
In order for the US to monopolize all of the crops we grow here and all of the cultivars we use, we'd end up losing a HUGE percentage of our food supply. Especially in gene-edited crops, as a huge majority of them are made in Japanese labs.
Everyone loves to say "It's all Monsanto", but it's... very much not. They've got plenty of issues, for sure, but they're far from the only game in town.
1. But crossbreeding does. Many modern plants, especially fruits, are entirely invented by humans. Regardless that's not my point. We've always been making custom plants.
2. Nothing in life is universal. Nothing is absolute. But do you have any idea how much forest land is cut down to make room for agriculture? Ag is one of the biggest GHG emitting sectors there is and anything that reduces their land use and emissions is great, especially if the relative cost drop encourages people to eat less meat.
People are against it and GMOs because they dont understand, jumping on the hype train and so they think its bad. Most people don't even know every banana they eat is a mutant clone. Or that the original watermelon was a tiny ball.
Hell most people don't even realize broccoli, Brussel sprouts, and cauliflower are all the same mustard plant.
Heres a few examples: [https://www.businessinsider.com/what-foods-looked-like-before-genetic-modification-2016-1?op=1#modern-banana-4](https://www.sciencealert.com/fruits-vegetables-before-domestication-photos-genetically-modified-food-natural)
The people who are against gene edited foods aren't environmentalists, they're anti-science idiots. And just like antivaxxers, they are dangerous psychopaths who should not be given an inch, much less the mile they're demanding.
So you admit that you're spamming, and doing so with a study that you know is fraudulent. Typical antiscience caveman.
If you want to be one of those idiots who smears your own feces all over yourself, go for it, but you can do so well out of the range of the rest of humanity.
If you truly had science entirely on your side of the claims, there would be no need for this kind of language. Shame on you. Even IF you actually knew what you were talking about, you're still being a dismissive, pompous ass.
They’re genetically grown to tolerate more pesticides. Yummy!!!!
Some are. But shouldn't the target of our ire be pesticides, not GMOs? Genetic engineering does a lot of good. The fact that it's used to make a specific bad practice easier is bad, but why target an overall neutral or even positive tool than that bad practice?
Unfortunately in the United States it’s the same corporation doing both: Monsanto. So they’re genetically modifying their crops to be grown with their chemicals which are found in our food.
Our EPA sets the limits on how many ppm. are acceptable in our food.
They doubled the amount from 20 ppm to 40 ppm in 2013. They claim glyphosate is safe. We can drink Roundup out of the bottle. (Sarcasm.)
Just don’t breathe it and don’t let it get on your skin.
Monsanto has lobbyists to protect their interests.
Glyphosate is found in 28 cereals in the US. Cheerios is one of them.
Our levels are so high, China incinerated grains that we exported in a large shipment.
It's not just Monsanto, though they're a big political actor. And yes, I did mention that problem in another comment. It's a problem of perverse incentives. That's why I'm saying there should be pesticide/herbicide content warnings, not GMO. That'd encourage modifications that make infestation and infection less likely and help defang Monsanto and companies like it.
That said, we also need to regulate the mess out of pesticides and herbicides to fix it, but that's more politically difficult than warning labels, so it's probably more of a step 2.
Herbicide-pesticide content warnings would be awesome.
They’re now found in organic foods but under the threshold to be labeled organic.
Not to mention that organic uses pesticides too
Yes. They use natural pesticides and l lesser amount.
I didn’t know this. Thank you!!
> there should be pesticide/herbicide content warnings
Or establish very conservative safe levels for all crops and foods sold for consumption. Oh wait, this is what's already done.
I'm not against it at all.
But there's also no reason not to label it. People have a right to be informed.
Do people really think that a complete lack of transparency will make people trust GMOs more??
People might be willing to trust that they are actually safe if we didn't try to slide them into people's mouths like a trojan horse.
At no point in your rambling, incoherent comment were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this comment section is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no karma, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Dont ef with nature.
Brought to you by the guy who once recently said:
>If you find any unclaimed girls that are still alive they're mine.
It's worse when you know he was talking about a lake being dredged. He literally wanted drowned women. Why are these antiscience sickos always the WORST kind of disgusting...
I was talking about party leftovers numbnuts.
Whatever you have to tell yourself to try and excuse your weird rapey necrophilic commentary, freak.
We’ve been “effing with nature” since we changed from hunter/gatherers to agrarians. We can just do it more efficiently now rather than taking generations of plants to select the desired traits.
You've described your own comment there, buddy.
ofcourse you also believe in god on top of that.
Ah yes, Dont fuck with nature. I guess we shouldn't reproduce, as we are literally messing with our nature there.
Let's say gene editing cause an unforeseen side effect, a mutation perhaps. Oh no! What we are going to do?! Oh wait, we can edit that mutation away.
Dont fuck with nature eh? Wow! That device you are using is very natural! The internet is created by nature yeah? If you love nature so much, why are you using very artificial stuff? There is nothing natural about us anymore, and we already fucked with nature since the industrial revolution.
Interesting article, but it doesn’t really contain anything of substance.
Here are a few points:
- for a 2013 article almost all evidence they present is pre-2000
- they go for whole paragraphs without referencing and make bold claims with no evidence to back it up (such as “The biggest threat caused by GM foods is that they can have harmful effects on the human body. It is believed that consumption of these genetically engineered foods can cause the development of diseases which are immune to antibiotics.” Despite later showing that none of the foods tested had any harmful effects).
- for basically all of the food testing they show (potatoes, tomatoes, rice, cotton etc etc) they show that there are zero harmful effects
- one argument they make is that introducing “foreign” proteins is dangerous, yet modern mass spec could easily determine whether the protein makeup of a plant is significantly different from the base cultivar
- the only study they point to in humans had only 7 volunteers which is almost certainly underpowered
- most of the “gene editing” evidence they show is from the 90’s and very early 2000’s. This is VERY different to modern gene editing by technologies like CRISPR. Sure, you can have off target effects with CRISPR, but nowhere near the same as ZFNs and TALENs.
- we also now have modern sequencing technology, allowing us to very easily determine if single SNPs have been altered or individual genes inserted without wide ranging off target effects. Back in the days of using restriction enzymes to verify modifications you’re basically checking if “the book has the same number of pages” after modification - today we can say “are all the words and spacing the same, in the same font and colour, on the same GSM paper with the same ink”
In summary, that article provides relatively little evidence to suggest that modern gene editing poses a risk to anyone.
Any amount of unknown in something that could potentially have vast reaching consequences I think is enough for a scientist to be against it. Obviously we have to push those boundaries in order to advance science, but we must also hold back on the reigns sometimes.
On this issue in particular, there is not only issues of toxicity in humans but also in insects and the potential long term environmental impact of a single insect being removed from the system. Even with CRISPR weird shit can happen. And if we’re doing it to fix food shortages, we would be better off fixing water shortages.
If it’s purpose is not to end global hunger, than it’s profit based which is what this post touches on. The gmo label is being removed because corporations paid politicians to remove it because the corporations make more profit without the label. There is no scientific or altruistic reason. And that extends to the entire gmo industry. It has been used to shut out America’s independent corn farmers via patent infringement from because adjacent crops became cross pollinated with patented genetics. Farmers are also controlled by being sold seed that can’t reproduce requiring a returning investment to the gmo producers.
As it exists in the world today, I think it’s a net negative.
Right, but in the same vein, people take medications like aspirin every day. It’s entirely possible that in 400 years the build up of effects could lead to sterilization if the world right? So by that logic every medication should be banned just in case?
From what we are able to determine today, GMO plants present virtually no risk to human or animal populations, particularly when there is rigorous testing in place to compare edible products to their non-GMO counterparts.
Regarding insects, is there evidence that these plants present a risk to insects? I’m assuming you’re talking about the removal of a single insect species by making their main food source insect resistant? We’ve been selectively breeding plants for hundreds of years for insect resistance.
With CRISPR weird shit can happen, but you make it sounds like we scientists modify an organism then just walk away like “lol done”. That’s not how science works. You modify the organism, then you sequence to verify correct modification. In commercial applications, ensuring minimal off target effects justifies the modest cost of whole genome sequencing of the plant.
It’s ironic you talk about “fixing” water shortages as if that involves anything but massive alterations to climate, which would have enormous ecological consequences. Modifying plants to, for example, be more resistant to dry conditions would allow for growing said plants in regions that experience drought without having to redirect the flows of entire river basins.
Regarding the removal of the label, I agree it’s likely profit driven. But as with many things (vaccines, nuclear power) public perception is warped by rampant misinformation. Should we require foods manufactured using electricity generated by nuclear power to also list that on the label? Because I guarantee that would also reduce sales, despite nuclear power being one of the safest power sources per MW.
I’m with you on Monsanto and patented seeds, but that’s a legislative issue rather than a scientific one.
The difficulty faced by those of us advocating for GMO technology is that the people opposed to it bring up arguments that are nothing to do with GM and are instead to do with capitalism.
Yes, the patenting of seeds and DNA sequences is a problem - but it's a problem of *capitalism*, not of GM technology.
I don't know why these people are so quick to criticise GMOs and so slow to criticise the economic system that is exploiting them...
I don’t say any of this to suggest gmo’s be banned. I’m replying to the comment I replied to asking how environmentalists could be opposed to gmo’s.
Aspirin should definitely be dialed back on its usage tho.. more because we know that it kills people than because of what we don’t know about it.
Regarding insects, we have at least one real life example of gmo rice becoming reactive to people with Brazil but allergies. We can make stuff glow so adding genes Can make completely new chemicals. Even if we can see what the changes are to the foods themselves, that doesn’t mean we know how those changes will react with everything. Something becoming allergic or toxic in a way we can’t predict could have massive consequences. And yes, so would getting water to every corner of the globe. That is a change that humans can control the rate of tho. Allow nature to evolve and adapt with it and/or only put the extra water in the right places and at healthy levels. Change isn’t bad, rapid unknown change is. And I don’t mean redirecting rivers, I mean affordable and efficient desalination.
We shouldn’t let the power company be the one to make that choice. Saying the public is too swayed by misinformation pretends that we can trust any other group to be the arbiters of truth in a non corrupted way. I would argue that at no time in history where we have allowed that, things got shitty for most
And nuclear is the safest until the day when it’s not. Then it turns everything into a gmo.
It does seem weird to me to be able to patent a DNA sequence. Especially to be able to create and patent then have no responsibility to contain said sequence.
> Aspirin should definitely be dialed back on its usage tho.. more because we know that it kills people than because of what we don’t know about it.
And yet it has a huge net benefit on society.
> Regarding insects, we have at least one real life example of gmo rice becoming reactive to people with Brazil but allergies.
That was GMO soybeans, and again was back in the late 1990’s when GMO was much more sloppy than it is today.
> We can make stuff glow so adding genes Can make completely new chemicals.
Using the words “new chemicals” indicates to me you really have no idea how this works. They’re not “new” in the sense they’re never before seen. When scientists make things glow they’re typically adding jellyfish proteins that are fluorescent. If you could eat a jellyfish you could almost certainly eat corn containing that same protein.
> Even if we can see what the changes are to the foods themselves, that doesn’t mean we know how those changes will react with everything. Something becoming allergic or toxic in a way we can’t predict could have massive consequences.
To a degree yes, but making corn glow isn’t really a likely application of genetic modification. A more likely modification is simply to increase yields, much like we have done through selective breeding of plants like corn.
> And yes, so would getting water to every corner of the globe. That is a change that humans can control the rate of tho. Allow nature to evolve and adapt with it and/or only put the extra water in the right places and at healthy levels. Change isn’t bad, rapid unknown change is.
And, by the same logic, how do we *know* the consequences of shifting water around? How can we control the wide ranging effects it has on the climate? Controlling the rate really isn’t as simple as you might think. You put water in one place, it evaporates and alters the climate, which could have huge effects we can’t predict (nor stop if it starts to go out of control). Nature isn’t going to “evolve” on any human timescale, unless you’re suggesting to terraform over the span of hundreds of thousands of years.
> And I don’t mean redirecting rivers, I mean affordable and efficient desalination.
Right but desalination is neither affordable nor efficient, and already has thousands of people working on it for regions like Yemen/Oman/Saudi
> We shouldn’t let the power company be the one to make that choice. Saying the public is too swayed by misinformation pretends that we can trust any other group to be the arbiters of truth in a non corrupted way. I would argue that at no time in history where we have allowed that, things got shitty for most
No, I agree on that, but what I’m talking about is blowing the safety concerns out of proportion, particularly by people who have no scientific background, is problematic.
> And nuclear is the safest until the day when it’s not. Then it turns everything into a gmo.
No, nuclear is incredibly safe even when you include accidents. Like, an order of magnitude safer than coal or gas.
This journal is not exactly Nature.
I mean, it's a peer reviewed journal. And somewhat ironically, some parts which are more negative are supported by referencing articles published in, you guessed it, Nature.
This isn't like vaccines. The scientific world is genuinely split on certain issues which are very complicated to understand. Most GM is obviously absolutely fine, but some is potentially very out there with the effects on people yet to be fully understood.
In either case, the way it is used could save the world (crops that are less energy intensive to grow) or help destroy it (crops that are resistant to pesticides). So in the middle of it all lies a very interesting evaluative debate which ranges through ethics and economics.
You're not wrong, and I did read through the article. I found it thin on references and superficial on analyses. It's also 9 years old.
Apple Airtags have entered the chat.
Having agricultural plants genetically modified so they be sprayed with more Round Up (Glyphosate,) is a dream come true. We may want to wash our produce better but the chemicals are soaked up as the plants are growing. Who cares that cancer is killing people and pets?? It certainly isn’t coming from chemical filled plants. Yeah. Eat the apple and broccoli. Bury our heads in the sand 🙄
Good. Making food that can grow using Less water in Harsher conditions is going to be the thing that actually saves the human race from starvation. And bowing to scientifically illiterate morons who couldn't pick a gene-edited fruit from a wild one with a gun to their head is a waste of time for Everyone involved.
Stop bowing to the overwhelming screaming of stupid people. If you can genetically engineer a banana to be three feet long? I WANNA EAT THAT BANANA. Hell, if you can genetically engineer the Gros Michel back into existence, I wanna eat that banana too.
Seriously, half the idiots complaining about Genetic Modification are EXACTLY the type of idiots who think "Bitter Almonds" are good for you(Enjoy that cyanide poisoning, bruh), and suck down quinoa imported by the ton from a country that can now no longer afford to feed its own people because we're basically stealing their grains for our own stupid vanity.
The fact there are non-GMO salts proves that the GMO scare mongering is just a marketing ploy.
Reminds me of "Atkins-Friendly Water" and "Gluten-Free Rice".
“The biggest threat caused by GM foods is that they can have harmful effects on the human body. It is believed that consumption of these genetically engineered foods can cause the development of diseases which are immune to antibiotics. Besides, as these foods are new inventions, not much is known about their long term effects on human beings. As the health effects are unknown, many people prefer to stay away from these foods. Manufacturers do not mention on the label that foods are developed by genetic manipulation because they think that this would affect their business, which is not a good practice. Many religious and cultural communities are against such foods because they see it as an unnatural way of producing foods. Many people are also not comfortable with the idea of transferring animal genes into plants and vice versa. Also, this cross-pollination method can cause damage to other organisms that thrive in the environment. Experts are also of the opinion that with the increase of such foods, developing countries would start depending more on industrial countries because it is likely that the food production would be controlled by them in the time to come.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791249/
That article goes on to list safety tests done on certain gmo foods and, judging by your comment, I think you’d be surprised by how bad some of them were.
You are making it out to be a very black and white issue when it is very far from that. Instead of changing genetics and creating unforeseen consequences so that we can grow food with less water, why don’t we put all of that focus and money into making desalination cheaper so we don’t have anymore water shortages?
Edit: did dude really reply then immediately block me?...
Same article also says
"GM foods have the potential to solve many of the world’s hunger and malnutrition problems, and to help protect and preserve the environment by increasing yield and reducing reliance upon synthetic pesticides and herbicides."
"Two studies on the possible effects of giving GM feed to animals found that there were no significant differences in the safety and nutritional value of feedstuffs containing material derived from GM plants"
"Specifically, the studies noted that no residues of recombinant DNA or novel proteins have been found in any organ or tissue samples obtained from animals fed with GM plants"
and don't forget:
"In acute toxicity studies with male/female rats, which were tube-fed with homogenized GM tomatoes, toxic effects were reported to be absent."
You know, species can vary greatly in genetics throughout generations. Fluctuations in allele frequency is what we call evolution. When it comes to food, humans have been meddling in this for centuries. To give an example: savoy cabbage, Brussels sprouts, broccoli, cauliflower and kale are the exact same species of plant, just selectively bred to these cultivars. I’m pretty sure you also ought to know that humans have been manipulating crops for years by using hormonal pathways of plants to create for example seedless grapes (these have been treated with Gibberellins).
It’s quite funny how some people reason that taking a tissue specific promotor and combining it with a gene construct to, for example make a plant less vulnerable to parasitic insects, would be vastly detrimental to humans. If you’re making a new protein to be expresse in a tissue, it’s important to first know if this is harmful to humans. This is why any decent scientist would first asses the toxicity of these compounds before creating a stable mutant line which, might I add, can take many years for slow growing species and is quite an investment when it comes to funding. The majority of foods we consume isn’t a model organism like Arabidopsis, making growth, seed gains, and ease to modify all the more difficult thus extending the time it takes to generate a successful homozygous mutant. One of my professors informed me that it could easily take up to a year to transform E. coli, a bacterium that replicates pretty fast in the right conditions. This is but a unicellular organism.
You’d be out of your mind to think scientists would invest years of study and work to genetically modify crops only to at the very end assess that it’s not safe for consumption.
I do also agree on your point of making other methods to grant bigger yields more accessible and cheaper, but in some cases this can be done through the usage of modified organisms. This doesn’t necessarily need to be the crop itself, but a more efficient bio control species can do wonders. Think about how we can utilise modified mycoparasites to treat/prevent rusts from doing overly excessive damage to the crops.
There is nothing about what you just said that is even remotely true. Seriously, pulling out some poorly reviewed and almost certainly retracted bullshit study just to try and cover your ass and protect your anti-science views doesn't mean anything you have to say is real, it just means that you're just another caveman to refuses to get with the program. You can either drop your anti-science bullshit, or you can get left behind. And you do not have any other choices in the matter.
The world is not going to wait for you to stop being stupid. The genetic modification of a plant cannot and will not have any effect whatsoever on the prevalence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Stop being stupid.
It is not just for heath, it will destroy your top soil and heavily reply on American seeds and fertiliser. Your food chain under control of the Americans. Of course, this is good news if you are Americans.
False on all fronts. Again.
Everyone outside United State of America know, the Americans are the controlling the world food chain by using GMO.
I see the tinfoil hat industry is thriving among the undereducated.
MOST GMO CROPS ARE MADE IN JAPAN YOU MUPPET.
Selective breeding is not the same as GM.
If you honestly think that deliberating encouraging mutations that have occurred naturally in vegetables is in *any* way similar to, for example, splicing jellyfish genes into corn then you should not be giving opinions about anything really, let alone how safe things are to eat.
Horizontal gene transfer does occur in nature. It seems rarer for it to happen from animal to plant, but the same thing frequently occurs from animal to bacteria to plant.
Right, so that's means that some idiot with CRISPR making glow in the dark vegetables just because they can is probably a totally safe idea that can't conceivably have any unforeseen side effects...
/s (just in case anyone is dense enough not to realise)
Are you seriously comparing scientists trying to make sustainable foods to a random hobbyist? You sound like an antivax nutjob.
I'm not doing that, no. There is no connection here with vaccinations.
you do realise this law applies to gene -editing- (switching on and off genes /already in the plant/ by removing small peices of DNA, aka, pretty damn close to breeding for traits except more selective) and not genetically modifying (adding genes from a different type of organism) which remains banned ... maybe if you can't accurately define what you're bitching about...when it is literally defined in the article.... you should not be giving opinions about anything either? :)
Those "natural" mutations are absolutely the same in the end as if those mutations were induced
Says the guy who clearly got his science education from "Mama Tramp's Holistic Crackhouse and Spa".
Seriously, dude. You clearly do not have ANY idea what the hell you're talking about. So bow your head nice and low, tuck your tail between your legs, and walk away. The adults are talking.
Nice retort. Come back when you've got a more substantial response than four different sentences that all mean: "I'm right, so you must be dumb for not agreeing with me".
Go back to your cave, neanderthal.
It’s not the same, but GM can be used as a faster, cheaper way to achieve the same results. Granted it can also be used to make foodstuffs resistant to herbicide so farmers can liberally spray carcinogenic chemicals all over my cereal, but in such cases I worry about the pesticides rather than the genetic make up of the plant.
The end result will be the same, starving humans. Cause teaching plants to grow in our rapidly deteriorating biosphere just distracts us from the real problems to be solved.
Gene modifying isn't the same as chemical treatment, hormone injection, or anything like that. Stfu
Yup, you need to buy fertilisers and seeds from American to support their GMO food chain.
BIG FUCKING W. GMOs are one of the greatest breakthrough sciences of the 21st century.
The food standards were lowered as we left Europe.
Changed =/= lowered.
What a stupid thing to say
Bloody europeans and their pesky desire to regulate food so it has dramatically less negative effects on my health.
It's PC gone mad.
Not if this is the result
This is a consequence of brexit
And no one noticed
Good. GMO's are totally fine for us and have potential to be more environmentally friendly as well.
Manipulating the how and where a plant physically grows is one thing. Changing its DNA, a whole different thing. Don’t convolute the two together please, you make yourself sound very uneducated.
It's just a faster process than the artificial selection that humans have been doing for literally thousands of years.
Every plant we eat is genetically manipulated, and has been turned into a completely different plant, with different DNA.
> Changing its DNA
This is what all plant breeding does
Nothing wrong with that! Organic/non-GMO food is for morons. It's just a marketing gimmick.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Tinfoil time, seriously, grow up..🤦♂️
u/dancingn1nja, I can’t respond to that thread because dude got salty and blocked me so I’m replying to [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/v04nsj/unlabeled_geneedited_food_to_be_sold_in_uk/iaegthf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) here.
The study does say that it has the potential to solve many problems but that’s not a counter to it also saying it may cause more problems that we can’t even imagine yet. Especially when there is an alternative option of making desalination affordable. Which fixes the root cause instead of one of its symptoms.
Your second and third paragraphs are being quoted deceivingly the full quote is both of those paragraphs and states that the studies found no significant differences in safety and nutritional value based solely on the fact that there were no recumbent dna was found. That doesn’t mean anything substantial and if you were being honest you would see that those two studies are presenting their findings in a way that pretends to clarify something they don’t.
And yes, the study does say that about tomatoes. Then literally in the next paragraph goes on to say that GM maize showed significant differences in nutritional value and has extremely flawed toxicity tests so we don’t know if it’s toxic or not. In fact, majority of the GM crops listed in that portion of the paper show there to be differences between the GM and non GM crops.
Ultimately, we don’t know so much about it and what we do know shows that it can definitely be bad
"Your second and third paragraphs are being quoted deceivingly"
These are direct quotes and anybody who reads the article (which is ten years old anyway) can see that.
Don't accuse someone of being deceiving and dishonest just because they present information that counters your unfounded ramblings / fantasies.
It’s one direct quote that you broke into two separate points when really the second point is providing context to the first. And that context is that the evidence is being presented deceivingly.
"it's one direct quote"
I'm not going to argue with someone who's making up their own definitions of words.
But the pesticides we consume daily (yes even if you only purchase organic) are probably completely unrelated to things like dropping sperm counts. No reason we'd be motivated to reduce those chemicals in our food/water supply.
Well that’s an entirely different conversation.. we’re talking about low water gmo’s being the answer to global food shortage.
>alternative option if making desalination affordable
The *cost* of desalination is not the issue. It’s the environmental and ecological repercussions of creating tens of thousands of gallons of now extra-high salt content brine created through the process. And what consequences that will have for the sea life in the areas it’s disposed of
Brine is a hyper repurpose able liquid and a fuck ton more water evaporates out of the ocean than that every day so we could just pump it back and maybe not even have a single issue
The potential fallouts are how having a previously arid region become very wet and the ecological maybe even climate impacts of that.